Haryana

StateCommission

CC/33/2018

PUNEET PANDHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

R.C.GUPTA

28 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA            

 Date of Institution:23.01.2018

                Date of final hearing:28.04.2023

                                                 Date of pronouncement:28.04.2023

 

Consumer Complaint No.33 of 2018

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Puneet Pandhi son of Shri Shashi Panchi resident of H.No.1009,  Sector 13, Urban Estate, Karnal (Haryana).  

                                                                                      .….Complainant

Through Mr. Sudhir Gupta, Advocate

 

Versus

 

 

1.      Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited having its registered office at 15, Ansal Bhawan, 16, KG Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its authorized signatory.

2.      Ansal Properties SCO-136, Sector-17, HUD office, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

….Opposite parties

 

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Sudhir Gupta, advocate for the complainant.

None for the Ops.

 

O R D E R

Per Manjula, Member:

 

                    Brief facts giving rise for the disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant had applied for a residential plot with the OPs. The Ops allotted a plot bearing No.131 measuring approximate 300 sq. mtrs. to the complainant against a total sale consideration of Rs.19,37,520/-. But the said plot was having a Peer Baba Mazar and thus found unfit for residential purposes. In pursuance of the same, the complainant moved an application dated 03.06.2013 for re-allotment by way of substitution of plot No.131, against which an agreement for allotment and payment schedule was discussed and fresh Buyers Agreement was executed on 03.06.2013 at Yamuna Nagar in this regard. Resultantly, plot No.131 already allotted to the complainant was agreed to be re-allotted and substituted by way of transfer of plot No.0037-B-1037 in his favour. In this process, previous agreement was taken back by the Ops with a promise to give a copy of the same to the complainant but nothing transpired. However, the amount already paid in lieu of plot No.131, was agreed to be adjusted towards the balance amount payable for substituted plot on the same terms.  It is further submitted that the complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.27,71,010/- to the Ops as on June 2013 but the Ops did not bother to develop the plot in question. The complainant made several requests to the Ops to deliver the possession of the plot but the Ops did not consider his genuine request. The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 31.12.2017 to Ops regarding refund of Rs.27,71,010/- but of no use. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. The complainant prayed that the Ops be directed to refund Rs.27,71,010/- which was deposited by him alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposits; to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as punitive damages due to no delivery of the plot and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses, and other reliefs as prayed for.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued against the Ops upon which the Ops appeared and filed their written version raising preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; no jurisdiction; complaint is not maintainable etc. On merits, it is admitted that plot No.131 was allotted to the complainant and on request made by complainant for alternative allotment, plot No.0037-B-1037 was allotted to him and the plot buyers agreement was entered between the parties. It is also admitted that payment made by the complainant relating to plot No.131 was adjusted in plot No.0037-B-1037. It is denied that the plot No.131 was unfit and previous agreement was taken back by the Ops  with promise to give a copy of the same to the complainant. It is admitted that Rs.27,71,010/- had been paid by the complainant. Further it is submitted that the development work was adversely affected due to an interim injunction order dated 16.04.2012 passed by the court of A.D.J. Yamuna Nagar. It is also submitted that the Ops will offer the possession of the plot to the complainant after completion of development work. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the complainant, counsel for complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.CW1/A vide which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed the same. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sumit Kumar, Authorized Representative Ansal Properties Infrastructure Limited as Ex.OPW1/A and closed the same.

4.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Sudhir Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant. With his kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint has also been properly perused and examined.

5.                As per the basic averments made in the complaint including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the complainant, the foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the present complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount which he had already paid to the Ops, alongwith interest or not? 

6.                In view of the above submission and after careful perusal of the entire record, it is not in dispute that initially plot No.131 was allotted to the complainant and thereafter, on request of complainant, an alternate plot bearing No.0037-B-1037 was allotted to him. It is also evident that buyer’s agreement was executed between the parties on 03.06.2013 (Ex.C-1). It is also not disputed that the basic cost of the plot was Rs.19,37,520/-. It is also evident that the complainant sent a legal notice to the Ops regarding refund of the amount of Rs.27,71,010/- (Ex.C-3). It is admitted and also evident that the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.27,71,010 to the Ops as per the Customer Ledger (Ex.C-2) but no offer of possession has  been made till date to the complainant. As such, there is a clear breach of terms and conditions of the Plot Buyers Agreement on behalf of the opposite parties.  When the project is not complete as such, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and thus, the complainant is well within his legal rights to get the refund of the amount of Rs.27,71,010 which he had already deposited with the opposite parties. Even otherwise also, there is a strong element of mental agony caused to the complainant for investing a huge amount of his hard earned money but still remained deprived of the possession of the plot. Under these circumstances, he had to knock the door of this Commission even for seeking refund of the amount. 

7.                In the light of the above observation and discussion, there are sufficient grounds to accept the complaint and while accepting the complaint, the Ops are directed to refund the amount of Rs.27,71,010/- (Twenty seven lakhs seventy one thousand and ten only) along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of respective deposits till its realization. In case, there is a breach or delay in making payment within the stipulated period of 45 days; in that eventuality, the complainant would further be entitled to get the interest @ 15% per annum for the defaulting period. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs only) as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.  In addition, the complainant is also entitled to Rs.30,000/- (Thirty thousand only) as litigation expenses.  It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 72 of the C.P. Act would also be attracted. 

8.                A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

9.                Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

10.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on:28^th April, 2023

                                                                            

                                                                                               

                                                                                      T.P.S. Mann

                                                                                      (President)        

 

 

 Manjula

(Member) 

 

                                                                                                           

 

                                                                                                           

M.S.